EVERYBODY PANIC:NightOwl2255: EVERYBODY PANIC: Correction: Bank of America does not own the property, and cannot set foot on the AP property until awarded the property at the end of the foreclosure process. The abandoned home is still in the name of the original purchaser, and only the original purchaser can have anybody evicted.

Wrong. I mean like, really, really wrong.BOA has been awarded ownership and are on the deed as the owners.

You are correct. It has already been awarded to BOA. Guy shoulda moved quicker and stood his ground. One person I know is standing ground after the sale, but will propbably have a sheriff come a-knocking. At this point, and in this particular cae, you are perfectly correct. This property belongs to the bank now. [I was speakin of AP in general terms]

Like I said, with BOA being so backed up, and apparently not knowing they even own the place, the dude will get some free rent. But, he will end up getting the boot. No way he's going to AP a house that BOA has already dumped who knows how many thousands repo'n.

To all the folks who are saying that adverse possession is a relic that should be eliminated - this is not an example of why adverse possession is BAD, it's an example of why adverse possession is GOOD.

The evil that we want to avoid is un-used property that someone "owns" on paper but that they express no interest in. That's the kind of thing that blights neighborhoods and prevents useful development. If you don't act like you own something then you might as well not own it.

Part of the problem we've been seeing with these mega-banks owning too many mortgages is that they can't deal with the actual issues involved in ownership. Banks holding forclosed properties need to pay their taxes, maintain the property, defend it against adverse possession, and find a new owner or a renter. This is WORK and it costs money and time. This is supposed to be the penalty that banks pay for giving bad loans and is a disincentive to foreclosure/repossession. Many local banks would try to find a way to avoid it with the owner, but BoA is too big and lazy to try. So they foreclose and then ignore the vacant property. They deserve this consequence.

I am dubious that this guy will make it the full 7 years. But he's living rent-free in a mansion for now, and more people should do the same to force BoA to clean up its practices relating to foreclosure, renegotiating loans and selling foreclosed properties.

rufus-t-firefly:ExperianScaresCthulhu: Spanky_McFarksalot: He not breaking any laws. Funny how the rich get all pissy when people use laws to get away with things.

It's not his home. He doesn't own it. The neighbor is right to complain. If asshole wants the home, he can buy it from the true owner.

The bank is the true owner.

Let's say the bank decides "fark it" and sells it to the guy for a dollar. Is she still right to complain?

The bank *hasn't* said that. Yours is a hypothetical.What's happened is that the lady has made an offer for a lot more than a dollar. Why isn't the bank selling it to her?She wants to give them money -- why aren't they taking it?

NightOwl2255:EVERYBODY PANIC: NightOwl2255: EVERYBODY PANIC: Correction: Bank of America does not own the property, and cannot set foot on the AP property until awarded the property at the end of the foreclosure process. The abandoned home is still in the name of the original purchaser, and only the original purchaser can have anybody evicted.

Wrong. I mean like, really, really wrong.BOA has been awarded ownership and are on the deed as the owners.

You are correct. It has already been awarded to BOA. Guy shoulda moved quicker and stood his ground. One person I know is standing ground after the sale, but will propbably have a sheriff come a-knocking. At this point, and in this particular cae, you are perfectly correct. This property belongs to the bank now. [I was speakin of AP in general terms]

Like I said, with BOA being so backed up, and apparently not knowing they even own the place, the dude will get some free rent. But, he will end up getting the boot. No way he's going to AP a house that BOA has already dumped who knows how many thousands repo'n.

Several months maybe even years of free rent and no risk? Sounds like a good idea even if he loses.

JerkStore:Not only will there be property taxes on a $2.1 million home, but that house's value counts as income, too. He didn't have it before, now he does.

He doesn't own it yet. And even when he does in seven years, it will probably end up being something more like "capital gains" than "wages, salary, tips". I am interested in the property tax angle, though--since he doesn't own it yet, does he have to pay property taxes on it?

ExperianScaresCthulhu:rufus-t-firefly: deanis: HotWingConspiracy: It's just aggravating, she said, considering how hard she worked to be able to afford a house in the neighborhood.

I support him just to spite this snooty coont. I might send him a pizza.

How is she being snooty? saying that you worked hard to earn something? tough farking crowd around here.

To start with, she was suspicious of this "Brazilian national" living in this house, assuming he didn't belong there.

Then, she's pissed that BoA won't talk to her about buying the house so she can throw the guy out.

Fark her. Maybe she should just worry about her own business and stop sticking her nose where it doesn't belong.

If somebody wants to buy the home, why doesn't Bank of America let them buy the home? That's, literally, money in the bank. How is this a rich versus poor or (more ludicriously) a white versus brown argument??!

It's their property - they aren't required to sell it to anyone.

My question is why she was suspicious in the first place? The only thing I notice is his nationality. To see the notices he's placed on the house would require going on to the property - so what made her suspicious? TFA mentions the power being switched on - is that something burglars normally do?

cefm:To all the folks who are saying that adverse possession is a relic that should be eliminated - this is not an example of why adverse possession is BAD, it's an example of why adverse possession is GOOD.

The evil that we want to avoid is un-used property that someone "owns" on paper but that they express no interest in. That's the kind of thing that blights neighborhoods and prevents useful development. If you don't act like you own something then you might as well not own it.

Part of the problem we've been seeing with these mega-banks owning too many mortgages is that they can't deal with the actual issues involved in ownership. Banks holding forclosed properties need to pay their taxes, maintain the property, defend it against adverse possession, and find a new owner or a renter. This is WORK and it costs money and time. This is supposed to be the penalty that banks pay for giving bad loans and is a disincentive to foreclosure/repossession. Many local banks would try to find a way to avoid it with the owner, but BoA is too big and lazy to try. So they foreclose and then ignore the vacant property. They deserve this consequence.

I am dubious that this guy will make it the full 7 years. But he's living rent-free in a mansion for now, and more people should do the same to force BoA to clean up its practices relating to foreclosure, renegotiating loans and selling foreclosed properties.

THIS makes a lot of sense to me. I would be curious if anyone could rebut in an intelligent manner.

ExperianScaresCthulhu:rufus-t-firefly: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Spanky_McFarksalot: He not breaking any laws. Funny how the rich get all pissy when people use laws to get away with things.

It's not his home. He doesn't own it. The neighbor is right to complain. If asshole wants the home, he can buy it from the true owner.

The bank is the true owner.

Let's say the bank decides "fark it" and sells it to the guy for a dollar. Is she still right to complain?

The bank *hasn't* said that. Yours is a hypothetical.What's happened is that the lady has made an offer for a lot more than a dollar. Why isn't the bank selling it to her?She wants to give them money -- why aren't they taking it?

No, she hasn't said she has made an offer - just that she told them she wants to buy it.

And as far as why they aren't selling...I guess you should ask the farking bank. Again, they aren't required to sell it, and they aren't required to kick the guy out.

jst3p:cefm: To all the folks who are saying that adverse possession is a relic that should be eliminated - this is not an example of why adverse possession is BAD, it's an example of why adverse possession is GOOD.

The evil that we want to avoid is un-used property that someone "owns" on paper but that they express no interest in. That's the kind of thing that blights neighborhoods and prevents useful development. If you don't act like you own something then you might as well not own it.

Part of the problem we've been seeing with these mega-banks owning too many mortgages is that they can't deal with the actual issues involved in ownership. Banks holding forclosed properties need to pay their taxes, maintain the property, defend it against adverse possession, and find a new owner or a renter. This is WORK and it costs money and time. This is supposed to be the penalty that banks pay for giving bad loans and is a disincentive to foreclosure/repossession. Many local banks would try to find a way to avoid it with the owner, but BoA is too big and lazy to try. So they foreclose and then ignore the vacant property. They deserve this consequence.

I am dubious that this guy will make it the full 7 years. But he's living rent-free in a mansion for now, and more people should do the same to force BoA to clean up its practices relating to foreclosure, renegotiating loans and selling foreclosed properties.

THIS makes a lot of sense to me. I would be curious if anyone could rebut in an intelligent manner.

why is this only happening in Florida? we should be doing this in every state

jst3p:EVERYBODY PANIC: jst3p: EVERYBODY PANIC: groppet: So while he is squatting does he have to pay the property taxes? And if he leaves can they just board up the place to prevent him from getting back in?

In Florida, an adverse possessor must file a particular form with the county, occupy the dwelling, pay all taxes and HOA dues where applicable, and make visible improvements over the course of 7 years. If the form is filled out correctly and filed, it is not considered by law to be squatting.

How do you gain access without "breaking in" and what makes a property abandoned and thus eligible for filing the paperwork?

As an adverse possessor, you go to the county, file the form, and then you are legally required to maintain and 'improve' the property, which includes changing the locks. VTW: The form is called DR452: [img14.imageshack.us image 784x350]

So let me get this straight. If I see a house in Florida that no one shows up to every night and there is no furniture in I can fill out that form and then call a locksmith to let me in and change the locks? Can I then use that address to file for food stamps and other public assistance?

Copy/Paste showing the actual statute and clarification of how to take raw land:

"What is adverse possession without color of title (Florida Statutes section 95.18)?

When an individual continuously occupies a property for seven consecutive years, lacking any legal document to support a claim to the land's title, he may establish adverse possession by filing a return with the county appraisers within one year of entry onto the property, and paying all taxes and liens assessed during possession of the property.

But paying the taxes alone is insufficient to establish adverse possession or cole of title (Bentz v. McDaniel, 872 So.2d 978 [Fla. 5th DCA 2004]). The property is considered possessed only if the individual does one of these:1.Cultivates or improves the land

2.Protects the land by a substantial enclosure, which is usually a fence (see Mullins v. Culbert, 898 So.2d 1149 [Fla. 2005])Regarding properties with actual homes: occupy, improve, pay taxes, etc. Hundreds do it, dozens win the property. Not for the faint of heart.

We hired a lawyer and stopped paying our mortgage to BOA about 6 months ago. We figure we've got at least another few years before they kick us out. Instead of renting after this, I think it might be worth looking further into this. It's not like there's a shortage of abandoned homes around here.

Prank Call of Cthulhu:Another problem that can be easily solved with a suitably motivated neighbor, a ski mask, and a bat with a nail in it.

Nah, use the war on the drugs for your advantage ones. We had an adverse possession case go down where a someone moved in while the owners were out of the country for one year (sent overseas for a tour at a foreign tech center and the guy took his family with him). So it ends up where the guy they hired to tend the lawn finally catches the squatters, but the squatters try to make the thing a civil matter and tie it up in court as they industriously loot the house or whatever.

The sheriff goes to the judge and says "I have reports of drug lab like activity coming from that house *winkwink*. The judge goes "Well then you better raid it, here is a warrant *winkwink*". Of course no drugs were found, but by the time the squatter was out of his holding cell a contractor had changed the locks, boarded the house up, etc so to reenter the squatters would be to visibly B&E,

EVERYBODY PANIC:But paying the taxes alone is insufficient to establish adverse possession or cole of title (Bentz v. McDaniel, 872 So.2d 978 [Fla. 5th DCA 2004]). The property is considered possessed only if the individual does one of these:1.Cultivates or improves the land

2.Protects the land by a substantial enclosure, which is usually a fence (see Mullins v. Culbert, 898 So.2d 1149 [Fla. 2005])Regarding properties with actual homes: occupy, improve, pay taxes, etc. Hundreds do it, dozens win the property. Not for the faint of heart.

So I put in a vegetable garden with a water feature, I have cultivated and improved the land. Badabing!

sxacho:We hired a lawyer and stopped paying our mortgage to BOA about 6 months ago. We figure we've got at least another few years before they kick us out. Instead of renting after this, I think it might be worth looking further into this. It's not like there's a shortage of abandoned homes around here.

After the eviction I think you should try and take back YOUR house via adverse possession. That would be epic.

Deep Contact:If he leaves the house to get food from a dumpster, can the bank police change the locks on the doors while he's gone?

Yes, typically squatters will have more than one person in the house though so it is never unoccupied. I have a friend dealing with a squatter couple at her parents house, the guy works, the girl has not left the property in 3 months.

EVERYBODY PANIC:As an adverse possessor, you go to the county, file the form, and then you are legally required to maintain and 'improve' the property, which includes changing the locks. VTW: The form is called DR452:

So many people hate bureaucracy, but little do they know what you can do with it and a little knowledge. There is literally nothing you can't do if you're clever enough and know where to look

jst3p:If I had sustainable investment income and no family I think it would be fun to attempt to gain title to homes in this fashion and if successful sell it to a "working poor" family for a fraction of its value and move on to the next one.

jst3p:EVERYBODY PANIC: jst3p: EVERYBODY PANIC: groppet: So while he is squatting does he have to pay the property taxes? And if he leaves can they just board up the place to prevent him from getting back in?

In Florida, an adverse possessor must file a particular form with the county, occupy the dwelling, pay all taxes and HOA dues where applicable, and make visible improvements over the course of 7 years. If the form is filled out correctly and filed, it is not considered by law to be squatting.

How do you gain access without "breaking in" and what makes a property abandoned and thus eligible for filing the paperwork?

As an adverse possessor, you go to the county, file the form, and then you are legally required to maintain and 'improve' the property, which includes changing the locks. VTW: The form is called DR452: [img14.imageshack.us image 784x350]

So let me get this straight. If I see a house in Florida that no one shows up to every night and there is no furniture in I can fill out that form and then call a locksmith to let me in and change the locks? Can I then use that address to file for food stamps and other public assistance?

The house doesn't need to be devoid of furniture. It can be fully furnished.Link

FarknGroovn:If the bank owns the home and this guy is squatting in the house, how does the bank show the home? Is it even legal for the bank to have a realtor go inside the house with this guy squatting?

If the guy refuses them entry they are SOL. The bank would have to go through eviction proceedings and get him out first. Of course no one is going to buy a house with a squatter in it anyway so this is kind of a moot point.

EVERYBODY PANIC:You ask why? Here's just one answer: If nobody maintains a home in a good neighborhood, it falls apart, depressing the entire neighborhood's property values. Wait, here's a second reason: If good people don't take possession and maintainthe place, real hellions will move in and destroy the place. Summation: Society is best served if homes are kept in good repair, and Adverse Possession exists mostly for the many reasons it serves society so well.

And how does adverse possession differentiate between hellions and "good people"? This particular case involves an unemployed 23 year old. I'm not so sure that maintenance and improvements are in this house's future...

WeenerGord:jst3p: If I had sustainable investment income and no family I think it would be fun to attempt to gain title to homes in this fashion and if successful sell it to a "working poor" family for a fraction of its value and move on to the next one.

Yeah, I bet you would. You're a real Robbin Hood, aincha

I probably wouldn't but to be fair I only said I think it would be fun.

jst3p:NightOwl2255: EVERYBODY PANIC: NightOwl2255: EVERYBODY PANIC: Correction: Bank of America does not own the property, and cannot set foot on the AP property until awarded the property at the end of the foreclosure process. The abandoned home is still in the name of the original purchaser, and only the original purchaser can have anybody evicted.

Wrong. I mean like, really, really wrong.BOA has been awarded ownership and are on the deed as the owners.

You are correct. It has already been awarded to BOA. Guy shoulda moved quicker and stood his ground. One person I know is standing ground after the sale, but will propbably have a sheriff come a-knocking. At this point, and in this particular cae, you are perfectly correct. This property belongs to the bank now. [I was speakin of AP in general terms]

Like I said, with BOA being so backed up, and apparently not knowing they even own the place, the dude will get some free rent. But, he will end up getting the boot. No way he's going to AP a house that BOA has already dumped who knows how many thousands repo'n.

Several months maybe even years of free rent and no risk? Sounds like a good idea even if he loses.

Here's one way to do it.PART A: Grab a house soon after abandonment. File paperwork with county. Follow the rules. Watch the county website for actions by the bank. FIght it in court. If you lose, you lived rent free for two years.Now, for PART B: Expecting to lose, keep an eye out and repeat above at a new location. Live forever without rent, moving along when necessary. If you do go to court and win, or if a bank gets messy and loses the paperwork, you win bigtime.But every time you take another place, that place is now secured and will be maintained, to the benefit of society in general. This is a moral action on your part. You're making the neighborhoods safer and helping the banks via maintenence and securitization.

jst3p:I wouldn't do it in million dollar homes, I would imagine that the property taxes on a reasonable place is less than a working poor family pays in rent. On my 210k rental property the property taxes are $1,300 a year. I just think it would be a fun and unique way of helping people.

Why don't you give away your rental property, then? or let them live there for free?

gshepnyc:Don't be absurd. If you own more land than you need for yourself and your family to live, you are a burden on society that has to deal with people who don't have a home or who don't have enough. You can't justify being a glutton, sorry.

I drunk what:jst3p: cefm: To all the folks who are saying that adverse possession is a relic that should be eliminated - this is not an example of why adverse possession is BAD, it's an example of why adverse possession is GOOD.

The evil that we want to avoid is un-used property that someone "owns" on paper but that they express no interest in. That's the kind of thing that blights neighborhoods and prevents useful development. If you don't act like you own something then you might as well not own it.

Part of the problem we've been seeing with these mega-banks owning too many mortgages is that they can't deal with the actual issues involved in ownership. Banks holding forclosed properties need to pay their taxes, maintain the property, defend it against adverse possession, and find a new owner or a renter. This is WORK and it costs money and time. This is supposed to be the penalty that banks pay for giving bad loans and is a disincentive to foreclosure/repossession. Many local banks would try to find a way to avoid it with the owner, but BoA is too big and lazy to try. So they foreclose and then ignore the vacant property. They deserve this consequence.

I am dubious that this guy will make it the full 7 years. But he's living rent-free in a mansion for now, and more people should do the same to force BoA to clean up its practices relating to foreclosure, renegotiating loans and selling foreclosed properties.

THIS makes a lot of sense to me. I would be curious if anyone could rebut in an intelligent manner.

why is this only happening in Florida? we should be doing this in every state

i got dibbs on all the CA houses

Actually, there are two broad systems in America. In some states like Florida, the bank cannot touch an abandoned property until a court awards it to them. In California, the bankruptcy does not require court approval, and AP is near to impossible on mortgaged properties in that state.

WeenerGord:jst3p: I wouldn't do it in million dollar homes, I would imagine that the property taxes on a reasonable place is less than a working poor family pays in rent. On my 210k rental property the property taxes are $1,300 a year. I just think it would be a fun and unique way of helping people.

Why don't you give away your rental property, then? or let them live there for free?

Because I do not yet have an investment income that sustains me, a requirement I laid out for my cunning plan.

cefm:To all the folks who are saying that adverse possession is a relic that should be eliminated - this is not an example of why adverse possession is BAD, it's an example of why adverse possession is GOOD.

The evil that we want to avoid is un-used property that someone "owns" on paper but that they express no interest in. That's the kind of thing that blights neighborhoods and prevents useful development. If you don't act like you own something then you might as well not own it.

Part of the problem we've been seeing with these mega-banks owning too many mortgages is that they can't deal with the actual issues involved in ownership. Banks holding forclosed properties need to pay their taxes, maintain the property, defend it against adverse possession, and find a new owner or a renter. This is WORK and it costs money and time. This is supposed to be the penalty that banks pay for giving bad loans and is a disincentive to foreclosure/repossession. Many local banks would try to find a way to avoid it with the owner, but BoA is too big and lazy to try. So they foreclose and then ignore the vacant property. They deserve this consequence.

I am dubious that this guy will make it the full 7 years. But he's living rent-free in a mansion for now, and more people should do the same to force BoA to clean up its practices relating to foreclosure, renegotiating loans and selling foreclosed properties.

The problem for the banks is the property market is depressed in Florida. The bank could easily take a million dollar loss if they were to sell it now, and that's if it sells at all. From that perspective it makes sense to keep paying 30k a year in taxes and maintenance and see if prices go up. Honestly the 5-10k it costs to evict a squatter is nothing more than a minor annoyance to them, which is probably why they aren't rushing to evict him. Especially if he is maintaining the property and paying the bills.

jst3p:EVERYBODY PANIC: But paying the taxes alone is insufficient to establish adverse possession or cole of title (Bentz v. McDaniel, 872 So.2d 978 [Fla. 5th DCA 2004]). The property is considered possessed only if the individual does one of these:1.Cultivates or improves the land

2.Protects the land by a substantial enclosure, which is usually a fence (see Mullins v. Culbert, 898 So.2d 1149 [Fla. 2005])Regarding properties with actual homes: occupy, improve, pay taxes, etc. Hundreds do it, dozens win the property. Not for the faint of heart.

So I put in a vegetable garden with a water feature, I have cultivated and improved the land. Badabing!

For non-residential land, that's about it. There are other details, like putting up KEEP OUT signs and such.

The ultimate AP is to befriend all the old codgers in your area. You'll learn who is all alone in the world, without heirs, in homes which were paid off long ago. Hang with these folks and just wait. Visit often. Mow the lawn for free. Take them shopping once a week. First one passes away, do an AP RIGHT NOW! Who's to protest? Who's to stake a different claim? Dude, the place is yours! Wait 7 years and go before a judge demanding your title. Woo Hoo!

In UK, adverse posession (or at least the UK equivalent) is rampant ... at least if the daily mail is to believed. the squatters always describe themselves as "italian." and yet, their "italian" always sounds a lot like albanian or romanian...

pciszek:JerkStore: Not only will there be property taxes on a $2.1 million home, but that house's value counts as income, too. He didn't have it before, now he does.

He doesn't own it yet. And even when he does in seven years, it will probably end up being something more like "capital gains" than "wages, salary, tips". I am interested in the property tax angle, though--since he doesn't own it yet, does he have to pay property taxes on it?

According this guide, you have to pay all taxes including back taxes and you have to do it on time. It's one of the things that gave me pause.Link